I agree that it should reflect the work of the people mostinvolved, but there
isn't a strict hierarchy of "the committee" and "the reviewers" and "the
public" - they are shades along a continuum that has defining parameters such
as membership of the group, actual input, and so on.
In this case my point is that the work is not settling on an answer, and
therefore to reflect the work that we are doing on this we must at the very
least explain the different approaches to an answer.
Procedure is to publish a Public Draft every three months, and to maintain an
issues list. Some groups have chosen to interpret that as marking issues and
contentious stuff in the draft, others have seperated the contentious stuff
from what is published as far as possible. I am arguing that it is counter to
our interests as a group to avoid noting where we have disagreement in the
core group, and in our interests to solicit further expertise through our
standard mechanisms for public review.
cheers
Charles
On Sat, 4 Aug 2001, Gregg Vanderheiden wrote:
My comment was simply that a public release of a document should reflect
the work of the committee.
If there is serious concern about wording of a particular item -- it
should remain in the group and be discussed there. It should not be
released to the public as the work of the committee when there are that
may core members of the committee that disagree with it.
[snip]
I will check on procedure on this topic to be sure.